Posted on 04/13/2012 2:57:34 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
I strongly disagree with David French’s analysis. I’m inclined, instead, to agree with commentators ranging from former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin to Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz that the affidavit is stunningly weak — “unethical,” as Prof. Dershowitz puts it. In fact, I go further (which, after nearly 20 years of writing and supervising the writing of complaint affidavits, I think I’m qualified to do). This affidavit is not law, it is agitprop: invoking, for example, the explosive term “profiled” but carefully avoiding any discussion of what it means and failing to note that (a) there is no evidence of racial profiling, and (b) absent an invidious racial component there is nothing wrong with profiling (indeed, we want police to do it so that innocent people don’t get hassled).
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Absent a new mystery eye-witness who is absolutely reliable we will never know the facts.
I am not willing to accept Zimmerman's version as anything but CYA. I would feel the same if the roles were reversed.
bttt
The emergency medical people and the police who saw him minutes after the shooting should be able to testify to what they saw, I imagine. There were two or more witnesses who heard and perhaps saw the fight--maybe not all of it but at least some of it. The police should know who they are and Zimmerman can compel them to testify (at least the sixth amendment says he can--but maybe that doesn't apply since it is the state of Florida bringing the charges rather than the federal government).
Fortunately, I've never been a plaintiff or defendant in any criminal or civil trial, and I've never gone to law school, but I think the defense is supposed to have access to any exculpatory evidence. Of course if the prosecution hides it and they don't know about it, tough luck for Zimmerman.
I don't know what happened, who confronted whom, or anything other than the (probably inaccurate) accounts that have been in the news. And neither do you. Until it is proven otherwise, I have no reason to think this is a result of anything other than a tragic misunderstanding on both sides.
If you think Zimmerman shouldn’t go “scot-free” then he needs to have broken the law and in doing so someone died as a result.
Exactly where did he break the law?
It isn’t a crime to follow someone. It isn’t even a crime to ask the person being following what they are doing there. This was all on private property.
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what laws could be applied here. Laws aren't firm cut-and-dry rules; there are always interpretations and applications, necessitating much discussion over whether a particular act is or is not legal.
I do not know anything about this case other than what has been publicized and opined. I *do* know that the 911 operator told Zimmerman to stay away, which he did not do (and which would have been prudent).
I'm afraid that if Zimmerman is not punished (even by a slap on the wrist), we'll see a deluge of similar incidents, all pointing at the Zimmerman case for their defense.
I do not know whether it is criminal to follow someone. But, having been in the position of being followed without knowing why, I can attest that it is *very* scary. If Zimmerman was, in fact, following Martin, then it would have been very reasonable for Martin to suspect that Zimmerman had criminal intent. Martin may have attacked out of fear for his safety.
I say that because I have these nightmare visions of vigilante squads out there taking justice into their own hands. I have the impression that Zimmerman was straying into vigilante territory when this incident occurred.
“I *do* know that the 911 operator told Zimmerman to stay away, which he did not do (and which would have been prudent).”
Sorry, but you do not know that.
The operator told Zimmerman “we don’t need you to do that” after asking if Zimmerman was following Martin. Zimmerman agreed not to follow him. But... The operator also asked where Martin went so that the police who were in route could follow up on the call. Zimmerman said he didn’t know where Martin was and stepped into an open area between houses so he could see down the row of houses in an attempt to tell the operator where Martin went. That’s where Zimmerman says he was attacked.
If Martin was “afraid” he simply would have gone back to the home where he staying nearby and had plenty of time to do so. In addition that home was in the opposite direction of where Zimmerman was. Instead he came back and confronted Zimmerman, apparently by a punch to the face knocking Zimmerman to the ground and then beating him while on the ground.
Facts do matter.
When I think I'm being followed, I do my best to get to a safe place. But then, I am a small woman, and I don't have the aggressive tendencies of young men.
I can very well envision a scenario in which intentions were misread on both sides, and the situation went from bad to worse as a result. Martin may very well have attacked Zimmerman because he felt threatened by the way Zimmerman was following; noting that Zimmerman was on the phone, he might have thought that Zimmerman was calling friends for back-up for some nefarious purpose, and decided that attacking was his only option.
Despite the politicization of this story, there is not necessarily a "bad guy" involved.
Have you ever been MUGGED !
Just maybe, the 6'1 football player thought Zimmerman was planning to mug him, and was going back for reinforcements. Maybe he thought that his best chance would be to attack Zimmerman before those reinforcements arrived. We don't know the whole story here, and, sadly, we will never know Martin's side of it.
Have we become such sheep that only the “authorities” can follow and question someone on private property as to what they are doing there?
If someone is on your property and you confront them about their presence without the blessings of the “authorities” are you being a vigilante?
Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain... There’s no indication whatsoever that Zimmerman was waving a gun around or otherwise looking for a fight.
There you go. Making assumptions and predisposed without hearing all the facts empanelled. No jury duty on this for you, friend.
Really? Saying that I don't know all the facts and don't know what would be the proper legal remedy in this case would keep me off the jury?
Awesome. Until now, I've avoided jury duty by either being in the middle of, or having already completed, a move out of the jurisdiction. Letting the attorneys know that I'm open-minded and undecided is a heck of a lot cheaper and easier than moving to get out of jury duty!
If someone is on your property and you confront them about their presence without the blessings of the “authorities” are you being a vigilante?
Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain... There’s no indication whatsoever that Zimmerman was waving a gun around or otherwise looking for a fight.
I do not know all the facts here, and neither do you. What I *do* know is that if I see someone I think may be suspicious, I'm not going anywhere near them. I'll go to a safe place and call the police. I do think that Zimmerman might have been leaning towards vigilanteism when he chose to keep following Martin.
How do you know that?
The police operator suggested he didn't need to follow Martin. Zimmerman replied "OK" and apparently limited his "pursuit" to an attempt to see where Martin was heading, so that he could direct the responding officer. It was dark. He told the dispatcher he lost Martin. And when the dispatcher asked for Zimmerman's address, he broke off giving his full address, saying he wasn't sure where Martin was (i.e., for all Zimmerman knew, close enough to overhear him uttering his address!).
Zimmerman's story is that Martin appeared out of the shadows and accosted him as he was returning to his truck and attacked him. Unless the prosecution can disprove that, Zimmerman can't be convicted of anything.
I'm afraid that if Zimmerman is not punished (even by a slap on the wrist), we'll see a deluge of similar incidents, all pointing at the Zimmerman case for their defense.
Tough skittles! That's no rationale for justice.
If you're basing this comment on the initial call GZ made to the police then you're misconstruing what happened..perhaps intentionally.
As to why Martin would return and confront GZ a few minutes later, the answer seems obvious. A better question might be, if Martin were afraid for his safety why did he return at all?
______________________________________________________
A) Obvious? Please tell us exactly what was in Trayvon's mind after he ran away from the stranger who followed both in a car and on foot.
B) What is the name of the eyewitness who says that he saw Martin return? Please provide that detail.
Yes, that was my first thought before I spent some time really reading about the case. From all that is known, particularly about the timeline and locations (none of which is dependent upon Zimmerman’s account) the one thing that I am absolutely certain did not happen is Zimmerman chasing, pursuing or stalking Martin.
Zimmerman first saw Martin a 3-4 minute walk (or less) from the house where Martin was staying. Zimmerman’s call lasted more than four minutes. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin two minutes before hanging up with police, and Martin, at that time, was only about 100 yards from home.
If Martin was nervous, or even if he wasn’t nervous, but he just wanted to go home, he had more than enough time to do so before Zimmerman’s initial call even ended.
Yet five minutes after leaving Zimmerman’s sight, he lay dead on the ground, not 250 feet from Zimmerman’s car.
I do not know why he didn’t go home, I only know that he could have done so if he wanted to, and Zimmerman couldn’t have stopped him without the police operator hearing the whole thing.
Obviously, I have no idea exactly what happened in the two and a half minutes between Zimmerman hanging up and the beginning of the 911 calls, but Martin fleeing from a pursuing Zimmerman is the least likely possibility.
Well, we don't have the eyewitness statements, of course, but according to Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, it was Martin's girlfriend "DeeDee" who reported that she heard Martin begin the conversation. This has been quite widely reported - here, for example. An excerpt:
She said the next thing she heard was Martin saying, “Why are you following me?” Then, Crump said, she heard another voice — presumably Zimmerman’s — saying, “What are you doing around here?”You can question DeeDee's (or Crump's) credibility, I suppose, but it seems unlikely either would want to support Zimmerman's story.
There is a murder 3 on the books in Florida, but it would not apply here (I know, I know - murder 2 doesn’t appear to, either.) For murder 3 Zimmerman would need to have killed while engaged in perpetration of another felony.
Manslaughter is automatically a lesser included charge under murder 2.
She's another one that will be run out on a rail.
Impossible..in no small measure because it never happened.
Where exactly did you gin up the idea that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car anyway?
You also failed to answer the basic question.. why did Martin, who had eluded Zimmerman and was supposed to be in fear of his safety, return at all?
Can we cross "Martin feared for his own safety" off the list of his possible motivations in the minutes before he was shot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.